RSS
Social media craftsmen…and tools
I’m admittedly late to the South by Southwest (SXSW) Interactive party: this was my first year.
I heard a lot about it ahead of time. Some good, a lot of bad, a lot of “I hate it, but you have to go.” So I was curious about it, if for no other reason than as an opportunity to witness a sociological phenomenon: What is it like to attend a conference that big, with that much hype, with that many people (over 10,000!), all talking about the same things?
Well, it’s pretty clear: there are actually several conferences within SXSW..and not just film, music, and interactive. Even within interactive there are multiple conferences.
What’s also pretty clear: there are two types of social media users: those who use the tools as ends in and of themselves, and those who use the tools as a means to a (larger) end.
Among my friends and colleagues, I heard a lot of frustration. Frustration that the content wasn’t stronger, that there was nothing new, that people were stuck in an echo chamber. I can see that.
As it occurred to me at the time, and as I said to them, “social media” as a space seems relatively finite. There are the tools, and there’s how you can use them. In the beginning, there weren’t a lot of people moving around that space. But now there are lots. Thousands. (Millions?) And that’s made the space—at least as long as it’s constrained to the tools and how to use them—very, very tight indeed.
So the tension I heard, I think, is the desire to break out of that space, the desire for it all to be about something more. And for a number of folks it already is.
It’s not so much about moving away from social media. It’s about moving away from social media as an end in and of itself. It’s about a desire for social media to capitalize on the potential it represents. For social media to be about pursuing the horizon and what’s beyond it, not about standing still and watching it (regardless of how high-tech the tools).
So SXSW, at least the interactive part of it, and at least the social media part of that (since the developers seemed to have a totally different experience—something I hope to test next year by sending one of ours), is two conferences: one for tools, and one for those who want to build. The problem is, I don’t think even SXSW understands (or at least, understood), that they’re serving two masters. Without that distinction, you had tool-focused people wondering what all these loosey-goosey discussions were about, and you had the builders wondering why we’re still talking about Hammer 2.0.
There’s much more to say, I’m sure, about the “social media space” and where it’s going, but I’m curious to know what you think. Do you see the distinction between tools and craftsmen? Does it matter?
Categories Digital Media
Twitter
LinkedIn
I saw the distinction in my travels at SXSW. That said, I don’t think SXSW is a real hard-core developer conference. I attended only a few sessions where a lot of code was discussed, and the usual developer conference mix of projects, API roadmaps, tips and tricks and best practices, debates on platform direction were mostly not there – a little of it with topics like HTML5 vs. Flash and some mobile stuff but it isn’t really where the code jockeys hang out. Maybe I didn’t go to the right sessions!
It was my first SXSW as well and I found it to be about what I was expecting: good networking, and some inspiring ideas to broaden my perspectives. But unless the conference gets much more meritocratic than democratic in choosing speakers and sessions, it will never rise to deliver real meat for the tools crowd. Perhaps SXSW doesn’t aspire to compete with hard-core developer events for just that reason. If I was a developer, I’d have spent my $ on Eclipsecon this week in Santa Clara, and blown off SXSW entirely.
I completely agree, Rich, both with the fact that SXSW is not a hard-core developer’s conference, and with the fact that sessions need far better vetting for content and structure (beyond a snappy title and description).
The missed opportunity of having so many folks from different areas of interactive together, I think, was in not having enough fora where the discussions crossed those areas. In other words, the silos of functional areas kept the discussions–and learning–from going broader. My favorite event, and it wasn’t part of SXSW at all, was Tim Hayden’s and Chris Brogan’s “Get Ready to Live” side event, which mixed academic perspectives with practical ones. That allowed new perspectives, and new information, to enter both the academic and practical arenas.
SXSW, with 10,000 people in attendance, presents a unique opportunity to do something similar at a spectacularly larger scale…with potentially that much greater of an impact on moving the whole field forward. That won’t happen, though, until the change towards meritocracy happen and until SXSW actively markets to (and seeks speakers from) both builders and users, and ensures that session topics–at least occasionally–are selected and delivered in a way that fosters that cross-fucntional discussion.
Tamsen, great post! To answer your question, in any industry there will always be the artists/users and there will always be those focused on analyzing and improving the actual tools. (Think left brain vs. right brain. They can’t help it!)
The two work together: The technical innovators who focus on the tools continuously improve upon them, providing the artistic craftsmen a greater range of capability.
We need both to move the industry forward. Maybe SXSWi and panel promoters can make it more clear in the future which type they’re targeting and what the takeaway will be.
Thanks, Michelle! I agree we need both…and perhaps we need some better self-identification (in addition to the conference doing some hard and good work around creating more concrete tracks of content and/or asking for session descriptions to include information on who should attend). As I noted to Rich, though, I think there also need to be topics that encourage conversation amongst both groups–in addition to those that happen over tacos and margaritas.
I totally agree… That’s where brand leaders (agencies, consultants, client-side) need to step up and dialogue with the tech innovators more proactively. Not just at SXSW, but everywhere we connect.
When we have clear, long-term, strategic objectives we’re able to inspire the innovators to keep creating and improving the tools that make us more effective. There’s something powerful in bringing these two camps together. And as you say, not just for margaritas!
Tamsen,
It was great meeting you at SXSWi.
I think your opening quote is so appropriate for what I hear about SXSWi. “I hate it, but you have to go.”
I like your perspective that a) social media is a means to an end, not the end point and b) SXSWi is more than one conference happening at once. I always find value in going to SXSWi because there is such a variety of thought. It pushes me to listen and think about how others view this space, and sometimes, how people so very close to the social media space (like web designers) aren’t thinking about social media at all.
I look forward to seeing you at next year’s SXSWi, if not sooner on one of my trips to Boston.
Best,
Heather | @HeatherJStrout
It was great to meet you, too! At next year’s SXSW, I’d love to see more panels that actively try to cross boundaries. I oversee the web developers here at Sametz, and so want to bring one of them with me for just that reason: how can we get folks (ourselves included) to learn more about what we don’t know, instead of reinforcing that which we do?